AB 120 - An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.More

Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide

Status:

This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law.

Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development Vote:Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.

An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

AB 120 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary

Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.

0 organizations opposed this motion

Need proof?

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org